JZipp

@Montalvo, I'm glad to hear you're taking precautions. I accept that we don't see eye-to-eye on the 'requirement' aspect of things, but clearly when it comes to common sense and precautionary measures, we have some shared views.

@JZipp, there are all sorts of risks to which we're exposed every day. Oftentimes, government and attorneys go more than a bit overboard in their effort to ensure that everyone is warned of every potential hazard, to the extent that at some point, people simply stop listening. Some examples: A) Bought an electronic device lately? Did you read the three pages of small print that explain all the nasty things that could happen if you insert it in any bodily orifice, use it while scuba diving or attempt to recharge it using jumper-cables from your car battery? No? It's a wonder your still alive! B) I worked at a large HP facility that had a hazardous material warning in the lobby for asbestos as required by state law. The facilities manager reported to me so I asked him where we had asbestos. "It's in the roofing shingles," he replied. You have to wonder what purpose that warning served for all the people who passed through that lobby. With apologies to Natashe's relatives, I think it's fair to describe her death as a rare accident, one that could as easily occur on any staircase in any building in the world (and probably does occur there with greater frequency than on ski slopes.) Should we require helmets for all stair-climbers? Ironically, I must confess that I'm going to buy a ski helmet. No, not because of Natashe or your impassioned arguments. I was skiing just yesterday with a friend who is a ski instructor. I asked whether he'd started wearing a helmet because of his job and he explained that he actually got a helmet because his son was of skiing age and he didn't want to be a hypocrite. I'm taking my grandson skiing next month and will get helmets for both of us.

BTW, this isn't me arguing that stupid people don't do stupid things... or that stupid people deserve extra protection. I do NOT believe that in most cases. However, to say that an accident relating to not wearing a skiing helmet is specifically the individuals fault when no one seems to recommend or require said equipment is extreme.

@Montalvo: Survival of the fittest is one aspect, but your and @lasloweger's prized legal system is one based heavily on the fact that governance and government even exist in the first place. The foundation of a legal system is a country's leadership, which in the case of the United States, has always been one built through democracy and government. So, your argument that my view somehow has a bigger connection to political ideals is a bit naive when it comes to your own views. I'm also not saying that the government specifically has to be the one to require skiers to wear helmets. People who share your views always assume that if someone advocates a new regulation that it must be government imposed. Well, maybe it actually is that way since litigation couldn't occur as a result of negligence if said rules weren't in place. SIDE NOTE: Is survival of the fittest even in play if you're not a dictatorship where one person rises to the top individually, proving 'fittest' and requiring someone else to overthrow him / her in order to create revolution or change? Also, Darwin never really debated his views with consideration of things such as a legal system that prevents certain things from occurring while allowing others... sure Bernie Madoff could've been viewed as the smartest, fittest person in one case... but the law brought him down. Why does the law exist? Because people need rules and regulations to prevent society from being wiped out entirely... but please, go ahead and keep touting your ideal of a free-for-all world. I'm sure you've never needed to lean on any rules or regulations as a means of helping you get by in life (or keeping you alive, for that matter).

@laslo weger, @JZipp, a fundamental political difference in our view of the world is whether we should have individuals assume responsibility for themselves or should assign that to government. And while most wouldn't regard it as an "either-or" issue, JZipp clearly is more toward the government assumption end while it appears that Laslo and I lean more toward the individual end. I happen to agree with Laslo's litigation solution in that it provides a reasonable measure of individual protection without impairing an individual's right to personal freedom through determining the level of risk they feel comfortable assuming. (As for my bastardized view of the world, a guy named Charles Darwin posited that it had worked pretty well for more than a few millenia.)

You're ignoring the fact that if helmets aren't required, ski resorts aren't required to have them available for patrons.

That's what personal injury lawyers are for. If a teacher, who should have known better, does not protect his pupil -- well, his liability payments will teach him to do so in a hurry.

Wow. That's a really bastardized view of the world. You're ignoring the fact that if helmets aren't required, ski resorts aren't required to have them available for patrons. Which means that someone who is taking a beginner lesson, with no previous experience , and working with a teacher doesn't know there's even the possibility of requesting a helmet (and in many cases there isn't since the resort wouldn't have them anyway). I get the 'anti-regulation' argument on various things, but to say that "people should just stop being stupid" isn't a fair assessment when they have no clear way of being 'informed' to begin with in certain situations.

@laslo weger, thanks. That's the point I was making. We need to develop an appreciation for the improvement to the gene pool every time an irresponsible idiot bites the dust.

It seems to me that the cost paid by society for overprotective, overregulating and overintrusive government is much higher than the benefit of saving occasional moron who doesn't want to wear protective gear.

It's a good point, but in the case of a sport, if there's manufactured gear that *could* be a preventative, why not use it? Obviously, it always depends on the situation. For example: seat belts. They're required in many (if not all) states, but there have been incidents where lives could've been saved in a car accident had passengers NOT been wearing them. I get that it's a case by case basis, but skiing is similar to riding a bike. There's no real reason for people NOT to wear some sort of protective gear on their heads while skiing other than their personal discomfort.

It'll be interesting to see whether experts conclude a helmet would've saved Natashe. Helmets have a relatively limited ability to cushion impacts and mostly serve to prevent devastating skull fractures. As far as a nanny-state law requiring helmets, thousands more people are killed each year by cigarettes and obesity. When do we start outlawing those killers?